Re:Portable nuclear reactor program sparks controversy
by caddywompus on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @07:37PM
(#27683175)
When it comes to base load, nuclear is pretty interesting. I remember reading that some plants sell electricity at below cost during low periods (nighttime in some locations), since they can't ramp the reactor up or down quickly.
It's a situation where both intermittent renewable sources and nuclear plants would benefit from a way to store excess produced energy
Re:Portable nuclear reactor program sparks controversy
by onethought on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @06:15PM
(#27682475)
Love the base load argument… if only there was a way to store electricity, we’d stop hearing these ridiculous “base load” arguments
Re:Portable nuclear reactor program sparks controversy
by hetman on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @07:13PM
(#27682980)
You mean, if only there was an economically viable way to store electricity. Still waiting on that one.
Re:Portable nuclear reactor program sparks controversy
by onethought on Wednesday June 30, 2021 @07:58AM
(#27687429)
Batteries. Economic viability is the next argument when you externalise the true cost (carbon).
Re:Portable nuclear reactor program sparks controversy
by hetman on Thursday July 01, 2021 @02:56PM
(#27702997)
Carbon is not the only possible cost to the environment. Building batteries is not exactly easy on the planet either.
Re:Portable nuclear reactor program sparks controversy
by onethought on Thursday July 08, 2021 @04:02AM
(#27769368)
You mine a resource (lithium), that can be recycled endlessly with very little loss.
You are right about Cobalt, but it is already being reduced/removed.
It's not even comparable to fossil fuel mining (even though technically it is fossil fuel mining). Because it's recyclable, so we aren't "losing" any material, in the form of converting it to an unproductive/hazardous byproduct.
2) How about "it's better than other power sources that can consistently service base load"?